Funding fault lies with Legislature

I, too, am outraged at the unfair treatment of Princeton by the state’s Chapter 70 education funding formula. I do not, however, agree that the fault lies with cost-sharing in the regional school agreement.

The Chapter 70 formula is based on the Board of Education’s 2005 plan for implementing “taxpayer equity” in which towns of equal wealth are treated equally. The property tax benefit of equality this year would have been about $600 per family in Princeton if the legislature hadn’t voted against implementing this step toward “taxpayer equity.”

As it relates to WSRD, don’t expect towns of unequal wealth to pay equal tuition per student. The Massachusetts Supreme Court, in McDuffy, ruled in 1993 that the state must fund an adequate education for students when cities and towns could not afford to provide it. Hence the state is compelled to fund some communities better than others.

So why am I prepared to march on the Statehouse? Because towns of equal wealth should be treated equally. As a taxpayer, I am unwilling to subsidize uber-wealthy communities with huge commercial tax bases like Boston and Cambridge and even less willing to contribute to taxpayers of Wellesley.

In most school funding debates, either the town or the school wins but the money stays in the community. In this case, the money is removed immediately by the state to be replaced with a vague promise of eventual “taxpayer equity.” Our schools are largely unaffected.

I call on the Legislature to finish implementing taxpayer equity and stop giving unfair advantage to cities and towns with strong political influence. George Washington once said “Influence is not government.” Let’s finish implementing the “taxpayer equity” plan agreed to in 2005 and have less influence and better government in Massachusetts.